Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ranks and insignia of Starfleet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ranks and insignia of Starfleet

[edit]

THE NOMINATION FOR THIS ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN 20 MAY 05

This is a self nomination for the ranks and insignia page of Starfleet. This article is comprehensive of every rank mentioned in the Star Trek series and provides color tables and charts with additional information. Photos are also provided and the entire article is referenced with source material provided. -Husnock 07:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Administrators: I will be offline until 16 May 2005. Please do not close the vote until after I return and can read comments which came in over the weekend. Thanks! -Husnock 23:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found the frequent use of [the] viewing audience a bit distracting. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, it has to be used, since Star Trek appeared in many formats. The awards look great, though I would try to find better photos (if possible) of the various Star Trek characters. Zscout370 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortuntatly the photos are really that best that anyone can hope for as they are screenshots. The "really good photos" out on the interent are copyright by Paramount and people using them typically rip them off websites without permission. I was careful not to do that and verified that all pictures on the page were fairuse. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:My concerns were answered on my talk page. The nominator stated that the pictures were screenshots, so the quality of the pictures will not be that great. Also, all pictures used are able to be used on Wikipedia with little to no copyright problems. I will change my vote now to support. Zscout370 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The images of insignias are all listed as "public domain" but I couldn't find any evidence that they had been released by the copyright holder. Can someone verify that? Dave (talk) 16:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • In regards to your question, the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times. Indeed, on my own computer, I made about one fourth of the images. The stripes, especially, are public domain because anyone can draw a picture of a stripe. The pips are the same, as they can be recreated by anyone simply by drawing a colored circle. The only questionable area is the movie era rank pins, but these are assumed public domain becuase of the high degree to which they can be found in publications both hardcopy and internet. Also the pins were invented in 1982, over 23 years ago, and as far as I know can be used without permission. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times" How does that make them public domain? And what about all those movie stills? Phils 17:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictures drawn by people on their own computer (like stripes and pips) are released to public domain by the users. The screenshots are fairuse based on Wiki image tag rules. As stated before, the only grey area is the movie rank pins, but these can be found in hundreds of different sources, half of which were published independently without connection to Paramount. I cant prove this without a letter from paramount, obviously, but I image the movie pins were released into the public domain years ago, since they were first created in 1982 and Paramount probably doesnt gets royalties everytime the movie pins appear somewhere like in a book or internet. -Husnock 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will personally redraw some of the various ranks and make them PD/GDFL, if that is ok with everyone. Zscout370 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, if I create these images, will they be PD or GDFL? Zscout370 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you make them, you can release them under either one. You just have to say "I release this under ______." I think there's even a template for it. Dave (talk) 19:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Update: the template is {{PD-user|Your user name}}
  • Support, it's admirably crufty. Everyking 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, material is not referenced, title is wrong. It should be Ranks and Insigniae of Starfleet. RickK 23:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll withdraw my objections. RickK 22:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Insigniae? Zscout370 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The title is wrong and thus it shouldn't be a Featured Article because it's not "Insigniae"? That must be a British English thing, as I've always seen it spelled as "Insignia", the dictionaries I have says it's insignia, and a one letter difference between American and British English is hardly a reason to deny the quality of this article. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very surprising comment, I must say. The article is completely referenced. All references are listed at the bottom of the article, both live action and publications, with references in the actual text . I read up on how to reference things in Wikipedia and will reformat the section on Monday 16 May. As far as the spelling, I have never seen insignia spelled the way you are referring. I agree with above, minor reasons for denying an article Featured Article status. What can we do to change your mind? -Husnock 00:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is a British spelling, but articles on here can either be American English or British English. However, the articles must be one of the other, not both, mixed in the text and title. Zscout370 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. Insignae is not an English spelling. Insigniae is the only valid spelling of the plural of insignia. I'm American, not English. If you're using "ranks" you have to use "insigniae". RickK 05:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ahem - "insigniae" is not the British English spelling either - I've never seen it, and my Little OED states "insiginia ... n.pl. badges or marks of office etc." - presumably the singluar is insignium or somesuch. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Insignia is the way it is spelled, at least in the United States with regard to military rank: (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/officers/o-rank.html) (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/comm.html) as examples of official US and UK Military pages that always spell it insignia, it is also spelled like that in the official Star Trek Encyclopedia --Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should be Ranks and insignia of Starfleet ie. not capitalised due to not being a proper noun. Further to the above discussion, from http://www.dictionary.com/, "Usage Note: Insignia in Latin is the plural form of insigne, but it has long been used in English as both a singular and a plural form: The insignia was visible on the wingtip. There are five insignia on various parts of the plane." --Oldak Quill 11:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on capitalisation; re "insigniae" - I should have known it would be explained at insignia. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to the uncapitalised form. However, would it not be better named "Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet"? --Oldak Quill 13:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to the move ;) I have never seen Starfleet used as a noun, with an article, definite or indefinite. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, within the Star Trek setting it is virtually never referred to as "The Starfleet", just "Starfleet". Characters do not say "I'm joining the Starfleet" or "The Starfleet is reassigning me." they say "I'm joining Starfleet" or "Starfleet is reassigning me."

--Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wangsandsword is right I think. Isn't Starfleet a proper noun? You usually don't have the before them. Its like saying "I'm work at the Walmart.", or "I'm going to join the The United States Navy." User:Peb1991 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starfleet" is frequently an adjective. I'd like to see the article titled "Starfleet ranks and insignia". Great article. Support. CDThieme 04:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a very good reference, well researched and very thorough. This article is even how I really found wikipedia originally, as I was looking for information on the subject and this was the best resource for it on the web. It is accurate, well researched, helpful, and even acknowledges and notes the various alternate and sometimes obscure theories. The idea that Kozinski was a Warrant Officer also makes me smile, since I suggested it on rec.arts.startrek.tech back in '96, and it's good to know that an idea I put forth has apparently found wider acceptance. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to be a very well reserached and informative article, though your published sources aren't cited correctly. There should be author and publisher information included instead of just a title. See "books" under Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ganymead 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All references will be updated by Monday May 16 to the proper format. -Husnock 02:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems comprehensive as far as I can tell. When the references are up, I'll support. You may also want to move some of the larger tables to appendices because they can interfere with the text. Good stuff overall. Dave (talk) 03:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've noticed that the TNG, DS9, VOY pics are made of multiple images - the table wraps incorrectly, so these really need to be saved as single images. Reduce your browsing window to half size to see what I mean. Otherwise - great!--PopUpPirate 08:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
As for the images being a single image, I am on it, fixing that. Zscout370 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PopUp, go to the Cadet ranks section, is that what you wanted? Zscout370 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, carry that through and it'll be there, for me at least! --PopUpPirate 20:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, setting a proper width fixes that. Many images are used many times, not all of us have t3 links the page thakes forever to load if we combine all ranks, there is no reason to combine images. Please understand the reson of many images that add up to the same thing. For instance the TNG pips, those are merely same image beeing repetively used right? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Reluctant on technical grounds - Wow, just wow. One of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. Some technical points that need to be fixed before this is FA quality though:
    1. Things like "several Star Trek publications have confirmed that..." need to be backed up by inline citations (the easiest to use is the inote/explain-inote system; see the edit page of helium for an example). But the extensive self-referencing of the episodes and films used is fine, IMO (not sure how it would be possible to be more specific ; DVD chapter and/or time segment?).
    2. The lead section is in very bad need of expansion. An article this size needs three good-sized paragraphs. See Wikipedia:lead section.
    3. The TOC is overwhelming. I'm not sure how to best deal with that, but consolidating some 4th and all 5th level subsections would help (the photos already help to break up the text and you can always use ; instead of real headings). Filling the white space next to the TOC with image(s) would also help.
  • Again, I'm a bit floored by this masterpiece of research. Very, well done. --mav 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've been talking out of my ... hat. I went to dictionary.com, and they claim that insignia is a plural as well as a single. I was mistaught in school. I'll withdraw my objection, and I apologize. RickK 18:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Smaller" images that sum up to a larger one is better. This way repetive symbols are uploaded to user once saving tem and wiki hddspace, and bandwidth. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, still do not agree with what you stated. Based on the events of today, I am going to show you on why one image is probably better than many. You know that when an image on Wikipedia goes missing, it is replaced with "Missing Image: Filename.ext." Well, with one image, you only see that notice once. But with many images used to make up a rank, as you like to use, we will see many of those notices pop up, possibly destoring the template. I also wish to show you a link that user PopUpPirate showed me, which also displays a problem of the many image use. This image, [1], shows what a smaller window size can possibly do to the template. CoolCat, I know you worked hard on these images, but I just want you to reconsider your method based on what I have said. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ranks and insignia of NATO ? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- pure fancruft, lowers the image of the project as a whole. Mostly a collection of images (although there is some text). Finally, "Alternate and conjectural ranks" is not even factual on the petty level of fancruft; pure conjecture. — Xiong熊talk* 04:58, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
    • In that case, you should probably list the article on VfD as being a mix of trivia and original research. --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pure fancraft"? "Petty level"? "A collection of images"?. To be honsst, that sounds a lot like flaming the article. I submit there is nothing petty about this article and it is far more than a colelction of images. I urge you to change your oppose vote to a comment or remove it. Calling the article names helps noone. -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pure fancruft" is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. Also, pasting the article into Word gives me a word count of more than 8,000, which, even allowing for image captions and the like, is I think slightly more than "some text". Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What are the sources for the various conjectural ranks? None of the references jumps out at me as not being part of canon, and if the source for the conjectural ranks is canon, then I don't understand why they're being described as "conjectural". How widespread is the use of the different fanon rank systems? --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very common. Since some eras are poorly documented (the original pilots, first movie especially) in terms of insignia, any listing requires a certain amount of educated guesswork from the patterns of the insignia and analogs to real world Naval ranks and other Trek eras. Debate, educated guesses and speculation on the ranks and insignia of Starfleet have been around since the beginning of Trek fandom, and probably always will. One reason this article is well respected by dedicated Trek fans is that it acknowledges all the various models in circulation, discusses them all and their merits, and makes a quite conclusive argument for the ones it uses, and matches perfectly with the on-screen evidence we have available already and official documentation, making it the best source for this information on the web. As an example of some of the hypothetical ranks: the TNG era "Branch Admiral" with just a colored rectangle insignia, a "Fleet Captain" in the TNG era with 5 pips and "Ensign Junior Grade" insignia with a hollow pip are all from the old FASA Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual for their old licensed roleplaying game (although the license for the game was pulled after the book, and it's widely believed that the low quality of the book was responsible) --Wingsandsword 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still object, but on different grounds. In the current version, the "Officer Insignia" table has problems causing the TNG and DS9/VOY rank badges to wrap around. See Image:StarTrekInsigniaProblem.jpg --Carnildo 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly due to the very small intro paragraph, a featured article really needs a more in depth introduction. I am also concerned by the presence of "conjectured" ranks/insignia etc. an encyclopedia is not the place for such conjecture, although I am aware of the problems in writing an article about a fictional universe. This is a very well researched article, but I do not consider it to be of featured article quality at this time. Rje 16:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with us describing conjecture that exists in the real world. I have no doubt that such conjecture is rampant in among hard core Trekkies, but I'll continue to object until inline citations prove this (lead needs to be expanded as well). If it does turn out that this article is making original conjecture, then yeah, that original research should be removed. --mav 01:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I conjecture that this will never reach the rank of Featured Article due to crufty minutiae abounding with original research. Edeans 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object. Nothing actionable there. --Carnildo 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate? Do you simply just not like the article? What about it do you find "inactionable"? -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Carnildo is objecting to Edean's oppose, not objecting to the article. - Brian Kendig 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is the case, then Carnildo should come here and vote under support, so it can be a bit clearer. I do admit this will be a close vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't support, yet, and I've expressed that opinion. However, I don't think that Edeans' objection is valid: an objection must express a rationale that can be addressed. An objection of "Crufty minutinae abounding with original research" gives no indication of what can be done to fix problems with the article. --Carnildo 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The most we can take from the main statement is to ditch the original research and find sources to back up some information. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The latter part of that - the objection to the original research - is definitely actionable. Take it out or back it up with citations, although Edeans really does need to be more specific about which parts are original research. →Raul654 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The page is extremely ugly - the tables appear to be far too wide for the page; the rank graphics are being stacked vertically rather than shown horizontally. For example, the first column by "Fleet Admiral" looks like three bars over two bars, and the last column looks like an open-parenthesis on top, five pips stacked vertically beneath it, then a close-parenthesis under that. The graphics for "Ensign" look like a big letter 'T', with a big blue rectangle on top and a little grey rectangle under it. This could be because I have Wikipedia set to use the "Classic" skin (which I've heard deals differently with image overcrowding) and I only have the browser window set to about 800 pixels wide, but still, more work has to be put in to make this page presentable when the window isn't really wide. - Brian Kendig 21:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aside from the problem with the pip images being wrapped, this article is just confusing to me. In the tables, what does "Conjectured" mean, and if there's a rank badge being conjectured then why isn't it being shown? Conjectured is in italics and N/A is in bold; these should both be either italic or bold. Should the column heading "Feature Films" really be that, when it only means "films 1-5 and the first half of 6"? There's a "Flag Officers" table then an "Officers" table then a text section about admirals then a table of admiral insignia then more text and tables mixed in a confusing fashion, ordered by rank and then by series... the result is that the article seems, to me at least, to have an amazing wealth of information but is in way over its head when it comes to organizing this information clearly. It almost seems to me like the article has bitten off more than it can chew. I think more work has to be done to streamline this article (in particular, do away with the fourth-level sub-headings) before it can become Featured. - Brian Kendig 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Inadequate lead. Incidentally, the first image in the "Cadet ranks" section overlaps with the text on my screen. Mark1 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Incidentally, the entire page renders fine for me on Firefox. – ugen64 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not about the browser, but your screen resolution. I have a screen resolution 1280*1024 which is highish but not at all uncommon, and there lots of overlapping pictures which cause ugly whitespace and are thus detract from the writing. Pcb21| Pete 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator for this page is now back online as of 15 May 2005 and will attempt to deal with the issues raised here. Most important of which is the sources and references.

As of 15 May 05: Vote appears to be: 8 Oppose and 5 Support. As stated above, valid issues will be addressed. People logging on and stating they just dont like the page...well, we cant do anything about that. -Husnock 22:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Revamp

Based on all comments above, the following major actions have been taken in the article:

  1. All sources and references have been formated per Wikipedia guidelines and placed in a refererence section at the bottom of the article.
  2. Original research ranks ahve been cleared out of the Alternate and COnjectural insignia section
  3. A new opening section has been written, before the table of contents
  4. A new page layout has been established with clearer defined sections
  5. The spacing of pics and talbes has been modifed in an attempt to make the article more user friendly
  6. Sections have been added on every officer rank (the sections which do not yet contain info will be written withint 48-72 hours).

I urge persons who ahve voted preivously to opppose to look at the changes we have mdae and alter your vote if you feel it is appropriate. After writing the new officer sections, nad giving the vote a few more days after that, I will place a notice on the Administrators Noticeboard for a final decision. Thanks to everyone foe inputs and advice. -Husnock 03:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The expanded lead helps, but I still don't see inline citations and the TOC is still overwhelming. --mav 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not much can be done about the table of contents. I pers0nally think the table is now rather well organized. As far as in-line citations, I feel that would clutter the article if I understand the concept correctly (EX:Page 13, Chapter 4, Book 2, etc after each fact?) Also a lot of the ranks reference live action production as the primary source in the dialouge of the text. -Husnock 15:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will be hard to pull off, but I wish for you to look at the article on Pope Benedict XVI. The editors have added footnotes to each section, so you put the footnote next to the source material and put the sources (with the footnote number next to it) at the bottom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a TOC that is not overwhelming and inline citations are required to pass FAC. The inote/explain-inote system has invisible cites. Thus no clutter. --mav 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't let this pass without comment - inline citations are not required to pass FAC. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations". There seems to be a slippery slope that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article (this is the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No use certinaly is not appropriate use. The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). --mav 21:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire: no use certainly can be appropriate if use would be inappropriate or if such use would not be an enhancement (although I entirely accept that inline citations are entirely appropriate in certain circumstances). If you are saying it is always appropriate or always an enhancement to use inline citations, then I think "appropriate" is the wrong word to use in the featured article criteria. Anyway, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article, in case anyone is interested. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont see the TOC as "overwhealming". A lot of other FACs have even more complicated Table of Contents. And, a very simple Table of Contents is actually not listed on the critical requirements for a Featured Article (it says something like "substantial but not overwhealming"). I really see no problem with the TOC. After the recent layout change, its actually pretty easy to follow.
As far as these citations go, that seems awhole lot of work when it is already talked about in the main text. I reviewed the text and most everything a rank is mentioned, it is followed by a mention of which episode it appeared in and which character held it. Books and manuals are mentioned in places, as well, but really apply to everything on the page in conjunction with live action sources. Thus, referencing a specific page out of a specific book which talked about a specific rank, would be very, very time consuming and difficult.
I encourage everyone to look at Medal of Honor and Order of the Bath. They made it to FAC pretty easily and without the type of indepth/intext citations you are talking about. Seems to be a lot of resistance over here. Im going to carry on as described above. I hope the Admins understand the huge amount of time placed into this and justly reward the article with FAC status. -Husnock 17:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I compromised and removed all the sub-headers dealing with the individual series. I feel thats as far aS table should be cut down, although perhaps we can trim it to not have sections for each rank, yet that was a thing that was stated above that the article should have. Cant make everybody happy, but I hope the TOC changes are what people are talking about here. -Husnock 18:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic:Man, those are the same two articles I am trying to use to justify that my article, Hero of Belarus, should become FA! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETION OF ARTICLE

The article is now complete. As for featured article status, I now count the vote tally as follows:

  • 6 Votes for Support
  • 4 Votes for Oppose
  • 2 Oppose Votes which I feel should be disregarded
    • Vote calling article "petty" and a "collection of images" be disregarded
    • Vote calling article "crufty minutiae abounding with original research" be disregarded

Counting the questionable opposes, its a tie and I have asked the admins on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page to declare this a featured article. Thanks for everyone's help. -Husnock 05:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not how it works. In order for an article to be be promoted to "featured" status, any and all actionable objections need to have been withdrawn. Objections that do not specify a problem to be fixed can be ignored. --Carnildo 06:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, those two objections aren't actionable. Calling an article "petty", how do you change that? "Crufty minutiae"? This is an article about the rank systems and insignia of a fictional universe written by dozens of authors over 40 years, 10 movies and over 600 TV episodes (as well as hundreds of books) that depicts a span of over 220 years, there are going to be huge piles of minutiae that all have some relevance, it is a slightly complex topic. --Wingsandsword 08:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both those objectors raised the issue of conjecture and original research; that's a valid issue which it's not at all clear to me has been resolved. Mark1 09:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Critical comment. Were it not for the rigid demands that opposing an FA have to fall within the narrowest of interpretations of the FA criteria, this would actually be a pretty strong objection. This is really difficult to point out, since there is obviously so much effort put into the article and in of itself it looks good and is well-researched, but I seriously question the validity of making fancruft (that is completely confined to the subject matter itself) an FA. I could imagine a thousand different articles on sci-fi, RPG or fantasy being FAs, but this is where I draw the line. I can not accept that a detailed description of pure fiction minutiae be held up as a model example of encyclopedic content. I am not looking forward to seeing the logical conclusions of the precedent that this FA might result in; namely nominations of articles like Ambassador class starship, forest moon of Endor or perhaps a future geography of Mordor. / Peter Isotalo 09:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The conjectured ranks are original research and are given way too prominent of placement in the article. The criteria call for factual, accurate, and verifiable. The article needs to remove the conjecture, or at least entirely separate it from what are actually verified ranks appearing in official sources. At the very minimum, to satisfy the no orignial research policy, all of the conjecture would need to be cited directly to the source it comes from, using a citation system such as Wikipedia:Footnotes. And those sources would have to have some reasonable level of quality, such as a published fan magazine. A geocities homepage listing a made up rank certainly doesn't qualify as something that Wikipedia should be covering, unless that website is demonstrably popular and widely recognized. - Taxman 15:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • 100% agreement with Taxman. This is my major outstanding objection to this FAC (see above). The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). This article is also starting to get too long. --mav 20:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You all have pretty much won as this is not going to be a FAC. Some people were nice, others were not. To the people who called the article names that was just low and dirty. I actually wonder if some joker is going to add a VFD tag now and say its "pure fan fiction". How amazing. Well, in the end, we still got a pretty good article out of it. I'm done with it now and rest the case. -Husnock 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm very sorry to hear that, because, as I said in my original reluctant objection, I very much like this article and think of it as one of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. But that alone is not enough. --mav 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is all very good, but isn't WikiCities where the article (or, at the very least, the conjectural ranks) should be held? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Sorry, but this is, well... fancruft. Not only does it cover a subject that is entirely fictional (and let's not forget that), it also rests heavily on conjecture. I wouldn't want to delete this article, and I recognise the work that's gone into it and that it will be of considerable interest to some people, but I just don't want to see fancruft featured on the main page. Now someone will probably object to my objection on the grounds that it's not actionable, but in my view the very subject being covered here means that however well written this article is, it is not worthy of being called an example of "Wikipedia's very best work", to quote from the official definition of an FA. Move it to the Star Trek wiki and have it featured there. If we were building a Star Trek encyclopedia this would be a fantastic article, but we aren't, and it isn't. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The subject isnt entirely fictional as the television series and movies have created these insignia for wear by actors therefore they no have reality. I see it more as a society article since these ranks ahve devloped over 40 years. As far as being conejcture, the article is well referenced and provides sources for most everything that is listed. In any event, it doesnt matter as I have closed the book on this and am not pursuing FAC status anymore. I am merely waiting for this page to be archives. So, you can take your objections elsewhere as this is a closed topic. -Husnock 21:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet&oldid=1138469722"